We Should Move on from Signalling-Based Analyses of Biological Deception

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)


This paper argues that extant signalling-based analyses cannot explain a range of cases of biological (and psychological) deception, such as those in which the deceiver does not send a signal at all, but that Artiga and Paternotte’s (Philos Stud 175:579–600, 2018) functional and my (Krstić in The analysis of self-deception: rehabilitating the traditionalist account. PhD Dissertation, University of Auckland, 2018: §3; Krstić and Saville in Australas J Philos 97:830–835, 2019) manipulativist analyses can. Therefore, the latter views should be given preference. And because we still do not have a satisfactory definition of manipulation, the functional analysis, according to which a state is deceptive iff its function is to mislead and it misleads, is currently our best theory of deception. This is not to argue that the signalling-based analyses have no value but only that they should not be used in general analyses of biological deception. We need to move on to some other interesting issues.

Original languageEnglish
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 2023
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Philosophy
  • Logic


Dive into the research topics of 'We Should Move on from Signalling-Based Analyses of Biological Deception'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this